3 ms·
> the Romans greatly preferred the simpler IIII to IV, XXXX to XL, and so on. (The IIII-for-4 notation survives today on the faces of clocks.) looks at watch
by flipp3r 9y ago
> the Romans greatly preferred the simpler IIII to IV, XXXX to XL, and so on. (The IIII-for-4 notation survives today on the faces of clocks.)
looks at watch
Well, damn, it's IIII. However my watch does use IX over VIIII, what's up with that?
- ldjb 9y agoThere's a theory[0][1] that it's mostly down to aesthetics. It looks visually more pleasing that way when split into three groups of four numbers: I, II, III, IIII (consisting of I only) V, VI, VII, VIII (consisting of I and V) IX, X, XI, XII (consisting of I and X) [0] http://mathtourist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/iiii-versus-iv-on-clocks.html http://mathtourist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/iiii-versus-iv-on-... [1] https://www.hautehorlogerie.org/en/encyclopaedia/glossary-of-watchmaking/s/roman-numeral-iiii-on-dials-1/ https://www.hautehorlogerie.org/en/encyclopaedia/glossary-of...
- sharpercoder 9y agoPersonally, I find distinguishing III and IIII quite hard in several fonts. However, the difference between [II and III] and [III and IV] is easier to read.
- genmon 9y agoThere are a few theories detailed here: http://mentalfloss.com/article/24578/why-do-some-clocks-use-roman-numeral-iiii http://mentalfloss.com/article/24578/why-do-some-clocks-use-... The reason I always heard is about ease of casting: it requires a more complex mold if 4 is written as IV instead of IIII.